Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:01:43PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I am starting to wonder if it is worth spending time on careful reviewing, >> or it would be sufficient to give a cursory review quickly to give you >> more time to polish your re-roll. >> > I'm not sure what you think is so egregious about this changeset, but if > you have a specific problem, please let me know. There is no insult involved. I just didn't know where to start, because the series was littered with many issues from high level design (e.g. does the command line interface and API addition make sense?) to low level styles (e.g. does the new code imitate the style of the existing code around it?), and in between (e.g. pipe2() is never used in the codebase without this patch. Is it portable enough?). It was clear that it needed a lot more work to lose a WIP label (the quality standard in this project is slightly higher than "the end result seems to compile--let's ship it"). In other words, I was simply being honest. > We all make errors, thats why > we review work like this. All your comment above does is toss a purposeless > insult into the conversation. Making mistakes is one thing. Sending a series that is not sufficiently proofread is a completely different matter. The review process is not a replacement for your own proofreading. It comes after that. If you did proofread the patch [3/5], you would have noticed that the fix you made to the documentation is a fix for patch [2/5]. You are in much better position than I or other reviewers to notice it---after all, it is your addition. The same for the typo in the mysteriously named function. How else do you expect me to react to such a series? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html